FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  January 15, 1987

  MANUFACTURER AND SELLER OF TREATED WOOD MAY NOT MISREPRESENT
     PRODUCT'S FIRE RETARDANT QUALITIES, UNDER FTC AGREEMENT

     The Federal Trade Commission has charged that Reliance Wood
Preserving Inc. and two associated companies misrepresented the
flame-retardant value of their "Flameguard" wood.  In a consent
agreement announced today, the companies agreed not to make mis
representations in the future and to notify purchasers that some
of the wood may not meet established safety standards.
     Most state and local building codes require use of fire-
retardant treated wood in parts of certain buildings, such as the
roofs of hospitals, nursing homes, and apartment complexes.  The
wood, which is made fire-retardant through pressure treatment
with chemicals, must be certified as meeting industry standards
by independent testing laboratories.
     According to the FTC's complaint, Reliance and the other
companies claimed that "Flameguard" met applicable building code
standards for fire retardant wood.  In addition, they claimed
"Flameguard" had the approval of certain industry and independent
testing groups, including Timber Products Inspection.  The FTC
charged that such claims were untrue, because some of the wood
failed to meet applicable standards for fire retardant wood and
also was not approved by independent agencies.
     Reliance Wood Preserving Inc. manufactures "Flameguard"
treated wood for McCoy Industries Inc., which sells the wood to
consumers through its wholly owned subsidiary, Reliance Treated
Woods.  Under the consent agreement, Reliance Wood Preserving and
its owner, Daniel Roy Dorman, are prohibited from making false
claims about its treated wood.  They must also notify purchasers
of "Flameguard" manufactured before April 15, 1985, that some of
the wood may not be fire retardant as represented.
     McCoy Industries and Reliance Treated Wood, under a separate
agreement, are similarly prohibited from making false claims.
They must also give Reliance Wood Preserving a list of customers
who bought the wood before April 15, 1985, so the company can
notify customers that the treated wood may not meet safety
standards.
     The Commission voted 4-1 to accept the agreement for public
comment, with Commissioner Andrew J. Strenio, Jr. dissenting.
Commissioner Strenio issued a statement explaining that "because
of the dangers to public safety from the misrepresentations
alleged here, and the difficulty for consumers of detecting the
existence and extent of any injury, I would reject the consents
and insist upon monetary redress provisions."
     Reliance Wood Preserving is located in Federalsburg, Md.
McCoy Industries and Reliance Treated Wood are located in
Greensboro, N.C.  The FTC's Atlanta Regional Office conducted the
investigation.

                             (More)
     The consent agreement is scheduled to appear in the Federal
Register Jan. 16.  It will be subject to public comment for 60
days, until March 17, after which the Commission will decide
whether to make it final.
     A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does
not constitute admission of a law violation.  When the Commission
issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of
law with respect to future actions.  Each violation of such an
order may result in a civil penalty of up to $10,000.
     Comments should be addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
FTC, 6th St. and Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
     Copies of the agreement, the complaint, an analysis of the
agreement, and Commissioner Strenio's dissent are available from
the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, same address; 202-
523-3598; TTY 202-523-3638.

                              # # #


MEDIA CONTACT:   Linda I. Singer, Office of Public Affairs, 202-
                 326-2178

STAFF CONTACT:   Harold E. Kirtz, Atlanta Regional Office, 404-
                 347-4836

(File No. 852 3106)
(Reliance)